masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:PNY
Welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Mass Effect (film) page. If you haven't already, please ' ' and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits. If you're new to wikis, please read the tutorial at Wikia Community Central. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started. In particular, be aware of our policies concerning the capitalization of alien race names and information sourcing. Leave a message at the help desk or on my talk page if you need help with anything! Commdor (talk) 00:48, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Medi-Gel H Zapeth and welcome on the wiki. I wanted to thanks you for your medi gel on the MEI page. If you have more time, you could also correct my others MEI pages because English is not my native language and my pages need some cleanups. Thanks in advance.--DeldiRe 12:43, June 8, 2013 (UTC) :Once more, good cleaning job --DeldiRe 09:32, June 14, 2013 (UTC) & mdash; versus – hey, just a quick note. it's not "sloppy source code" since & mdash; is a valid bit of HTML. it may actually be preferable to actually inserting an em dash (–) since older computers/browsers are more likely to choke on the unicode support needed for an actual em dash than an html entity code. (Thelee (talk) 23:04, June 13, 2013 (UTC)) :Sorry about the "sloppy source code" thing; I just said that because it's easier for editors to read with the actual symbol in source code whether than "& mdash;"... at least I would think so. But, if it's more preferable to insert the the actual dash into source code, as you say, then what is the point of this discussion? Zapeth 23:12, June 13, 2013 (UTC) ::I think you misread my note. the HTML entity (& mdash;) is preferable. (Thelee (talk) 23:14, June 13, 2013 (UTC)) :::In that case, I did misread your note (my bad). Still, did you read my reasoning as to why I replace the code with the actual symbol? Also, to add onto what I said, if I'm correct, the article where I made these changes at already had the actual symbol in the source code mode... so why replace them with the & mdash;?... It seems like other articles mostly use the actual symbol as well. Also, if old computers "choke", so be it, IMO, because to be honest, if your (not you personally; just a generalization) computer is so old that it "chokes" on the unicode support needed for em dashes, you need to get a job and buy another computer. Zapeth 23:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC) ::::I agree that it's probably less readable for editors, but then again we're talking about an editting system that is filled with like this oh god. (Thelee (talk) 23:15, June 13, 2013 (UTC)) To reply to your third comment: then we, as in everyone at this wiki, need to get our lazy fingers up, and start inserting the actual symbols for those codes. Note that inserting the actual symbol cuts down a little on the bytes of an article... and we don't need unnecessary bytes... do we? The system is naturally awkward, but it is easily correctable... if we choose not to be lazy. Zapeth 23:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :well, the other issue is that because the editing field is a monospace font, it is much harder to tell which dash you're using (compare with how this looks and how it looks in the editor): - – — (which is why with monospace fonts it's preferable to do -- instead of an em dash, which is incorrect for a non-monospace font). Also, I'm not sure you can say which is lazier: remembering — or remembering ALT+0151 (or CMD+SHIFT+- for an older mac or just holding down - on a newer mac/iOS/android) (Thelee (talk) 23:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC)) ::well anyway, i don't care enough to go change any existing code to my preferred style, just putting it out there. (Thelee (talk) 23:49, June 13, 2013 (UTC)) :::Okay. By the way, I copy and paste. :p Zapeth 23:51, June 13, 2013 (UTC) Wikia rules Hi Zapeth, You said "I also don't agree with a lot of things here, but I'm not going to complain... for the sake of Mass Effect, lol!". I'm a bit curious and I'd like to know which things you are refering to. I think that I will agree with you for a lot of those and I wanted to tell you that you are able to open a vote to change those "bad" wikia usages. I will even support you if needed. And check Thelee page to see what he recently made for the sake and the completness of the wiki to understand that this wiki can adapt :) --DeldiRe 14:41, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :Well, as you can see on Commdor's page, I'm a user who prefers that images have thumbnails, being that every image on the wikis I've been to have thumbnails. I also think that thumbnails are more beneficial towards the user, as nine times out of ten, viewers are less-likely to hover over an image to see what the caption is. (I can see why images aren't thumbnails in some instances, however.) I also think that images here should have a sort of template of some sort, to give images descriptions, license images and verify their source. I DO NOT think British English should be allowed either, but I know many will disagree with me, and that's understandable. But I've seen some articles, for example, have "armor" and "armour" in the articles; choose a single way of spelling the word, lol! That's not even considering the fact that most readers are most likely American. (Don't get me wrong; I am doing this for the sake of English. I have nothing against Britain, and I don't really like America, or any other country or nation for that matter; just clarifying that.) This is just a personal preference, but I would also like the wiki to expand on the use of the monobook skin. (It looks terrible right now, doesn't it?) Some of the templates here look kind of plain/generic, and I honestly can't understand why articles on games don't have infoboxes; it just seems stupid to me. Those are some of my major problems I have that come to mind, and you would be surprised at just how many editors these changes could attract... or repel, but most are out of preference, which is why I don't plan on complaining about any of them. I'll be a strong supporter of anyone who does, however. And on a side-note: I've seen some very productive wikis split over stupid things similar to these, and I don't want to see this wiki loose any editors who decide to "fork" and make their own wiki. In a nutshell: I have a couple of problems here, but I prefer to keep my big mouth shut. Zapeth 15:20, June 14, 2013 (UTC)